Interesting Court Case...

This probably belongs more in the Pesticides forum but more people come here and this could pertain to anyone, so...

Happened to catch the People's Court this morning, there was a case of a guy suing a landscaper for making his dog sick thru the weed killer he applied. The facts of the case were....the guy's dog had wandered into his neighbor's yard (his sister's actually) and thru contact with the chemicals had gotten very sick. The landscaper was not licensed and he had not posted any warning signs after the application. He had sprayed the weeds as a favor to a good customer. Supposed he told her he wasn't licensed but said he would do it one time for her and went and bought some name-brand spray (they didn't say what is was)

The plaintiff was armed with the EPA regs for New York, which said warning signs must accompany any "commercial application"

However...the judge examined the laws and "commercial application" meant pesticides applied to commericial properties, rather than chemicals applied for profit. Residentials were exempt. She then noted the county laws required the homeowner, not the applicator, must post warning signs along property lines, unless the treated area exceeded 100 sqft. He had only spot-sprayed a small area so he was OK.

So the lawnboy won...interesting that his being unlicensed was not relevant to the case.

THIS SPACE FOR RENT

One time, I asked Topsites what time it was, and he told me the history of the clock. Thanks Topsites!
New, hip, fresh Topsites-ism: "I took a beating this year as well, that never changes"

This probably belongs more in the Pesticides forum but more people come here and this could pertain to anyone, so...

Happened to catch the People's Court this morning, there was a case of a guy suing a landscaper for making his dog sick thru the weed killer he applied. The facts of the case were....the guy's dog had wandered into his neighbor's yard (his sister's actually) and thru contact with the chemicals had gotten very sick. The landscaper was not licensed and he had not posted any warning signs after the application. He had sprayed the weeds as a favor to a good customer. Supposed he told her he wasn't licensed but said he would do it one time for her and went and bought some name-brand spray (they didn't say what is was)

The plaintiff was armed with the EPA regs for New York, which said warning signs must accompany any "commercial application"

However...the judge examined the laws and "commercial application" meant pesticides applied to commericial properties, rather than chemicals applied for profit. Residentials were exempt. She then noted the county laws required the homeowner, not the applicator, must post warning signs along property lines, unless the treated area exceeded 100 sqft. He had only spot-sprayed a small area so he was OK.

So the lawnboy won...interesting that his being unlicensed was not relevant to the case.

Click to expand...

Saw this myself. I thought the landscaper was going to incur the wrath of that fox-of-a-judge.....

But it went like you said - the landscaper got a big break. Neighbor should have complained to his state Pesticide Bureau, and he might have won this case.

Oh, and the herbicide was SpeedZone.

Its a Cinderella story outta nowhere. Former greenskeeper and now about to become the Masters champion.....​

This probably belongs more in the Pesticides forum but more people come here and this could pertain to anyone, so...

Happened to catch the People's Court this morning, there was a case of a guy suing a landscaper for making his dog sick thru the weed killer he applied. The facts of the case were....the guy's dog had wandered into his neighbor's yard (his sister's actually) and thru contact with the chemicals had gotten very sick. The landscaper was not licensed and he had not posted any warning signs after the application. He had sprayed the weeds as a favor to a good customer. Supposed he told her he wasn't licensed but said he would do it one time for her and went and bought some name-brand spray (they didn't say what is was)

The plaintiff was armed with the EPA regs for New York, which said warning signs must accompany any "commercial application"

However...the judge examined the laws and "commercial application" meant pesticides applied to commericial properties, rather than chemicals applied for profit. Residentials were exempt. She then noted the county laws required the homeowner, not the applicator, must post warning signs along property lines, unless the treated area exceeded 100 sqft. He had only spot-sprayed a small area so he was OK.

So the lawnboy won...interesting that his being unlicensed was not relevant to the case.

Yep...The judge (and thus the judgement) was wrong in this case. What threw me, was her definition of "commercial lawn application". They interpreted this as "non-residential", when in fact, commercial means just that...for hire - whether it is residential or commercial. She had no idea about the ol' customer bought the stuff, either. The "landscaper" was saying how this stuff can be bought over the shelf - "anyone can go to the store and buy it." The fact of the matter is, ANYone can but ANY of the pesticides that commercial applicators use - with the exception of RUP's, of course. Now, as far as the flags,...she was probably right on about the "homeowner not having to post it", but the fact was,..it was not the homeowner doing the ap..

Joe

Thank you, Dad - for always being the dad that you were. You truly are my hero. You always were.

This probably belongs more in the Pesticides forum but more people come here and this could pertain to anyone, so...

Happened to catch the People's Court this morning, there was a case of a guy suing a landscaper for making his dog sick thru the weed killer he applied. The facts of the case were....the guy's dog had wandered into his neighbor's yard (his sister's actually) and thru contact with the chemicals had gotten very sick. The landscaper was not licensed and he had not posted any warning signs after the application. He had sprayed the weeds as a favor to a good customer. Supposed he told her he wasn't licensed but said he would do it one time for her and went and bought some name-brand spray (they didn't say what is was)

The plaintiff was armed with the EPA regs for New York, which said warning signs must accompany any "commercial application"

However...the judge examined the laws and "commercial application" meant pesticides applied to commericial properties, rather than chemicals applied for profit. Residentials were exempt. She then noted the county laws required the homeowner, not the applicator, must post warning signs along property lines, unless the treated area exceeded 100 sqft. He had only spot-sprayed a small area so he was OK.

So the lawnboy won...interesting that his being unlicensed was not relevant to the case.

Click to expand...

Judge is dead wrong. Commercial application are made on residential & commercial props. If I had sprayed prop in this case, and flagged property correctly, I have no control over the fact that a dog wanders into a treated area.

Shes a judge and you are lawn guys trying to say she is wrong, Im going with the judge.

Click to expand...

Go for it, but the FIFRA Laws are very clear as are the Local Texas Department of AG Laws.

(2) Private applicator
The term &#8220;private applicator&#8221; means a certified applicator who uses or supervises the use of any pesticide which is classified for restricted use for purposes of producing any agricultural commodity on property owned or rented by the applicator or the applicator&#8217;s employer or (if applied without compensation other than trading of personal services between producers of agricultural commodities) on the property of another person.

(3) Commercial applicator
The term &#8220;commercial applicator&#8221; means an applicator (whether or not the applicator is a private applicator with respect to some uses) who uses or supervises the use of any pesticide which is classified for restricted use for any purpose or on any property other than as provided by paragraph (2).